 | | Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
Dear Lego and others, After hearing that Arkham Asylum included two pirate muskets, I raced out a bought a copy. (Actually the last copy at my local TRU). [LEGOSet 7785] Looking at the box on the way home, I noted that the contents panel showed the (...) (17 years ago, 4-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) I agree that this image should not have been included on the box...but for an entirely different reason. Look at the set very closely. You've got the Riddler, and a cell for the Riddler. You've got Poison Ivy, and a cell for Poison Ivy. You've (...) (17 years ago, 4-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) I understand where you're coming from. But I wonder, where do we draw the line between having fun and addressing every possible concern that could arise? The pirates theme, your theme of choice I believe, has a disgusting and horrible true (...) (17 years ago, 4-Jun-07, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) That's clearly true, and it's unfortunate that there's always somebody eager to be offended by pretty much everything--not that Richie is such a person, but his thoughtful question definitely brings the issue to mind. (...) Also clearly true, (...) (17 years ago, 4-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) This kinda reminds me of the recall several years ago: (URL) (17 years ago, 4-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) It certainly does, though it's not something I choose to portray in my pirate MOCs and not something that LEGO has chosen to portray in its sets (beyond prison cells, and planks for walking. Oh, and I once built a guillotine). (...) Conflict (...) (17 years ago, 4-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) I guess I was using your opinion and those that spotlighted it as a barometer for what the public is thinking. Its usually safe to assume that if someone has a mild discomfort towards something, someone somewhere is up in arms about it. (17 years ago, 5-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) I remember a time when there were no weapons in the sets. There were pieces that you could pretend were lasers in the space sets. It was a gentler time then I quess. But I do remember that lego made a plastic toy gun at one time, perhaps (...) (17 years ago, 5-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) I know it's not any more comforting, but the chainsaw, and other power tools, seem to be considered standard medical equipment LEGO, as featured in the (URL) hospital> (use the spin function - it's on the upper floor). It frightens me more in (...) (17 years ago, 5-Jun-07, to lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Wow--all else being equal, that's a fantastic piece of analysis. Nicely done! Dave! (17 years ago, 6-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) What, the Scarecrow can't have henchmen? You can't run a supervillain lockup single-handedly. Not if you want to do a good job of it... Steve (17 years ago, 6-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Of course he can have henchmen, but there's a clear pattern of having the henchmen dress in such a way as to make their employer more-or-less identifiable. Joker's guy has a dark-purple shirt, Two-Face's guy has a white/black shirt, and Mr. (...) (17 years ago, 6-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) This is an alarmist over-reaction, in my opinion. No offense, I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you broached the subject and here's my opinion. You seem to be implying that LEGO either is insensitive to the Abu Ghraib (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) OK. I'm with you to here. Not sure I entirely agree but it's all reasonable. (...) Here you kick into what I consider to be an alarmist over-reaction yourself. Do you really think that a comment on a LEGO forum read by a small number of people (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Hi Tim! I'd rather be talking with you about MOCs, but what can you do, right? Anyway, I'm sure the cartoonist who started that particular controversy thought the same thing. Words affect things, people read stuff. I don't think it's an (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) But that is why we have .off-topic.debate ;) (which both of us forgot to move to... sorry, Lugnet) (...) I suspect the cartoonist either didn't think much at all or consciously set out to be malicious but we'll never really know the answer to (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Which is exactly my original point. Any focus group could stumble upon Richie's original post and get all up in arms over it and start some sort of movement against LEGO. Putting the idea out there, anyone can read it and over-react any number (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Although it's unlikely that LEGO intended the set as a commentary on Abu Ghraib, their choice to foreground an institutionalized torture chamber speaks of a curious lack of sensitivity on the subject. Given TLG's long-standing policy of (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Yes. But my point here is that by responding with a reference to the cartoon you're making it a little bit more likely to be seen by the very people that you think may get upset. I sincerely doubt that either post will cause a calamity but it (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote: I sincerely doubt that either post will cause a (...) Sounds like a great them for a time travel movie! (...) Well, I still respect you. And I think we actually feel the same way about the original (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) You think? (...) I think that there is a definite line WRT to reality and fantasy. The holocaust sets were offensive because they portrayed reality; these Spiderman sets deal in the realm of fantasy and make-believe, and so they shouldn't be (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) But, they're making a toy. Saying they have a "curious lack of sensitivity" implies that there is some sort of sinister commentary on their part. Just because it reminded one person of something horrible doesn't mean that issue should've been (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Well, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. (...) Hey, you poser--we're talking about Batman sets here. Keep your escapist fantasy characters sorted out, will you? Of course, if you're looking to talk about the current Spider-man (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) All you do is give, Dave! (...) Oops! Mea culpa, but a rather funny blooper there, nonetheless:-) I'll bet you are only too happy to invite me into your little den of iniquity, Dave! :-) (...) I agree, and I think that fantasy provides a (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) My generosity and my humility are the two attributes of which I'm most proud. (...) But you can hate the crime without loving the victim, can't you? (...) Ah! But that's the difference between melodrama and drama. The more sophistimacated (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Not to mention your eloquent gift of good grammar and tongue-in-cheekiness. (...) Well, yeah, that's basically what I meant. (...) And that, my friend, may be one of those "nutshell" differences between a liberal and a conservative. Assuming (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) I'm sorry if you thought that my post was alarmist over-reaction. I could claim your response to my post was much the same, I guess. (...) No, no. I'm saying that the scene "reminds me of some of the Abu Graib pictures", and that I find the (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Just a point of order, Dave: I didn't include a question in my initial post. Cheers Richie Dulin (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) But you brought their judgment into question. Semantics here, IMO JOHN (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) You keep out of this. I'll decide what you did and didn't say! ;) Dave! (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) And god forbid that anyone gets accused of being anti-Semantic. a (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Well, it looks like the same antics to me. (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Aren't torture chambers generally located in the basement? I reckon it's the Lobotomy Ward. That's much more jolly. (...) Batman as a theme in general touches on some pretty dark themes that probably aren't appropriate for children. I've often (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Right. Semantics, that must be it. Even so, even if that was what Dave was meaning, it would be nice for him to have the used the phrase "Richie's comment" or "Richie's post". It would save you the hassle of having to explain this stuff to me, (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) No need to apologize. I see your point about my post seeming the same... (...) Your view is that children shouldn't see the box a children's toy comes in. It does imply a change. In general, when I present my view to someone that they are (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) First off, "sophistimacated" was just a means of letting out some air so that I don't start taking myself too seriously. Let me disclaim that it in this passage I'm speaking specifically of fiction rather than reality. The reason it's more (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Well, they did sorta include the reception desk. Sorta. In the first floor, aside from the sliding cage door, there's some sort of computer terminal with a phone and a swivel chair. Not very desk-like, but hey, it's not very asylum-like (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Hey, there's no need to go insulting Batman by calling him twinky names like that. (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) I thought the difference between melodrama and drama was the cheesy music. That's what one of my theatre profs told me, at least... (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Fair enough. Actually, I find it a lot more convincing as points of view go than the semantics one. ;) Cheers Richie Dulin (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Just making sure. Got that one from Duffy, did ya, Dave!? (...) Hold on right there! I wonder why that is the case! And I certainly don't believe it is by Cawinkydink. And if it is so easy, than why would it be restricted to our culture? I (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) And if I may intrude into this here, we have had some wonderful fiction on the telly lately in which what is considered to be 'the bad guy' in the 'tv show universe' is the person we most relate to. Loads of examples, but starting off with (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: SNIPPY (...) Hey , what about the innocent men and the guilty women and children? (I had a strange cultural default twinge there as I typed 'children') SNIPPY Tim (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Reading through this thread I was coming to the same conclusions. I think its the main point. If a film is unsuitable for children then why are toys made of it? Tim (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Well, there's a pollyanna answer and a cynical answer. Pollyanna: The toys are produced for teenagers and adults who see the film and who still like to collect; they're only seemingly marketed to children so that the adult buyers feel youthful (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
--snip-- (...) I don't think it can be quite so simple though. A lot of films are MA or PG13 (which any child can see if their parents take them IIRC) because of 'bad language' or nudity, neither of which are likely to make it to the toy product. (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Which can be a bummer IYAM ;-) (URL) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) As a born-again Capitalist, the answer is clear to me, and Dave's right: it's all about the money. If somebody can earn money from making toys by tying into a craze, then they'll do it. Far too many companies look only at the bottom line, and (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Generally speaking, this is the idea to which I object. Identifying with bad guys is bad. (...) Is Han really bad? Sure, he undermines the laws of an evil empire, but does that make him "bad"? Shouldn't we resist evil (bad)? (...) I can't (...) (17 years ago, 9-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
--snip-- (...) No, that's just reality. It's just that liberal minds take a bit more effort to take it into consideration. (...) Does that mean you support Court by vigilante and death penalty for thievery? Do you really think it's up to the (...) (17 years ago, 9-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Okay, I take it now that we have dispensed fantasy and are now dealing with real life situations. Vigilantism isn't ideal, because there isn't a standard-- that, of course, is the beauty of Law. The problem comes when the law fails to bring (...) (17 years ago, 9-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Loathing him as I do, I can't speak for the Spiderman films, but I'd say that the 60's Batman tv show isn't suitable for viewing by anyone. Also, in the US the Star Wars films have all received a PG rating with the exception of RotS which (...) (17 years ago, 9-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) It is, as Dave suggested, an entirely cultural notion. Look to untamed nature to see the natural "might makes right" position, where the strongest (whether it be physically, or in terms of mental cunning) survive by killing, maiming, or simply (...) (17 years ago, 9-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) You're supposed to feel sympathy for Darth Vader because right before he redeems himself, we see Luke on the verge of making the same monumental mistake that his father made before him. Of all six movies, that is easily my favorite scene, (...) (17 years ago, 9-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
--snip-- (...) I'd be more sympathetic too, but they're still a murderer. What about someone who has been abused by a partner for many years and lacks the capacity to escape. If they kill that partner in cold blood they are a murderer but I'm pretty (...) (17 years ago, 9-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Agreed. There are still consequences for actions. (...) Hmmm. Very broadly speaking, perhaps. But there are plenty of Conservatives who could easily sympathize with the killer in your example. (...) Well, you are certainly taking a risk by (...) (17 years ago, 10-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) I have tried to keep track of this as it is rather interesting. My main complaint about the whole thing is that the torture chamber in this set is compared to Abu Ghraib and not Sadam's rape rooms or torture chambers with the hooks and metal (...) (17 years ago, 10-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
--snip-- (...) Yes I don't doubt it but I think that the basic Conservative position (as opposed to the position of Conservatives) is against it. It becomes an 'exception to the rule' rather than part of a grey spread. (...) Yes. I'm still talking (...) (17 years ago, 10-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) I'd say that depends on the society. In the US there is a problem with people mugging Oxycontin(sp?)-dependant people for their prescriptions and mainlining it. It is perhaps more expensive than heroin, and anyone who actually needs it to (...) (17 years ago, 10-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) The comparison is apt because like Abu Ghraib under U.S. control, Arkham Asylum is susposed to be run by the 'good guys'. Their mission is to protect the general population by incarcerating the bad guys - but not to abuse and torture said bad (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Hugo Strange generally goes by the title "professor", probably so as to not be confused with Marvel's Dr. Strange, who is considerably stranger than Prof. Strange...which is not to say that Prof. Strange isn't strange in his own right. This is (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) I dug up (URL) some statistics> (page 288- of the PDF) and it would appear that in the US just under one third of drug users are using something other than marijuana. So when talking about high-risk people (those whose actions are a danger to (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) I don't know that it's as simple as a black-and-white declaration. If someone is at full mental faculty but is physically incapacitated by constant agony with no hope of relief, how is it noble and compassionate to force that person to (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) You're correct, but that's kind of a dumb law. There's a ton of things that you can do to yourself that you can't do to others without consent, among which tattooing and masturbation are perhaps two of the most obvious examples. Why suicide (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) It's not in that situation, either. It is noble and compassionate to try and comfort and help provide meaning to one in pain and agony. Further, not helping someone kill themselves can hardly be characterized as "forcing" them to live, Dave! (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) The Judeo-Christian heritage of the United States government says that it's wrong to kill anyone, therefore it should be illegal. That does, of course, lead to the obvious question of why they thought it should be a capital crime. I mean, as I (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Yeah, but if the percentage of people who posed an immediate risk to people other than themselves was significantly higher, there would be more political capital to do something about it. Once the public perceives a lack of risk to themselves, (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Yup. I always have trouble keeping the doctor vs. professor thing straight concerning Hugo Strange. And I should know better since I just recently read "Batman and the Monster Men". (...) Ack! As a big fan of the series I can't believe I (...) (17 years ago, 12-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) To anyone who is interested in picking this up, and intends to do so online, make sure to compare prices between the individual box sets and the full series pack. When the last box set came out, I remember noticing that their online price for (...) (17 years ago, 13-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Vegetable? Mineral? ;-) Tim (17 years ago, 25-Jul-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) (snipped) (...) This is an outrage ! Didn't you think of your family ? You paid full retail price ? Were you tortured into paying ? -pete.w (who hopes he didn't miss a special on this set) (17 years ago, 27-Jul-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
